Breaking News: U.S. Supreme Court Stops Gay Marriage In Utah

[JakeStarkey]

beagle9, don't rephrase the question.

The argument is about political philosophy not the actual size of government.

Civil Unions did not work because too many on the far right would not let them be enacted in law.

Your sophistry is both elementary and pathetic.

 

[beagle9]

beagle9, don't rephrase the question.

The argument is about political philosophy not the actual size of government.

Civil Unions did not work because too many on the far right would not let them be enacted in law.

Your sophistry is both elementary and pathetic.

Ok then you answer Matthew, and I will watch and learn maybe. Do you have proof that the right wouldn't allow Civil Unions to exist or become law in order for the government to abide by such law within many states that would allow civil unions between gays ? I mean civil unions were to allow gays to have the same rights as others when it came to legal matters such as inheritance, benefits and other such matters that involve government or judges in which to reside over such issues. Last I remember the nation was becoming ok with the issue of civil unions, but you say no ?

 

[Silhouette]

Hey Beagle, what you are saying is scaring Jake so he is resorting to beating you up with verbal abuse. Instead of having him succeed in driving you off, because you are bringing up good points, just use his abuse as a litmus indicator of how much your reasoning is making him uncomfortable. And forget about "belonging" or "fitting in" in this discussion. There's no time for that for warriors of words...lol.. Just write and ignore the verbal grenades. As they increase in frequency, so indicates your accuracy in argument.

If the conservative movement is for smaller government? Why do you want to stop someone from getting married to who they choose?

Does ANYONE getting married to who they choose, now cause smaller government or bigger government to happen as a result of ? Now that is a question to be pondered now isn't it ?

Wonder what happened to Civil Unions, and why wasn't that good enough ? Didn't that give them the very governmental things in which was being held back from them finally, and this as far as them being together in this way legally ?

You bring up an excellent point Beagle. Let's look at the excerpt from the Brief from the last page here:

Page 16:

Utah adoption law similarly allows adoption only to "adults who are legally married to each other in accordance with the laws of this state," and does not permit adoption by a "single adult," id. 78B-6-117(2), if that person "is cohabitating in a relationship that is not a legally valid and binding marriage under the laws of this state." Id. 78B-6-117(3); see also id. 78B-6-102(4). For adoptions of children in the custody of the Division of Child and Family Services, preference is given to "a man and woman who are married to each other." Id. 78B-6-117(4); see also id. 62A-4a-607(1)(b)... State of Utah ban on same-sex marriage brief

Here's why civil unions won't do for LGBTs in most states: They cannot access orphaned kids to adopt.

Then: look at my signature. It's simple. Marriage affords them top-tier access to orphaned kids where they no longer can be screened as "non-married" people. In fact, and this is a true and sickening story, I know a pair of gay men who officiated as "married" in order to lure in a young underaged teen boy who is their real sexual interest. They didn't officially adopt him. But it was because they were holding themselves out as a committed couple that the community stood back and did nothing as they took this homeless boy in. They have turned that boy, who I knew personally and saw growing up was chasing girls before all this happened, and "turned" him into a grotesquely sexually obsessed "twink" that they take turns sodomizing.

The now young man in his early 20s is such a sexually obsessed mess that even his gay friends say the situation is out of control. The two men who "adopted" him are the same two I've talked about before where the one who is officating as the actual male in the couple was staring at my female friends breasts the entire time they were at a social event; if any of you remember me talking about that before. Where his over-acting femme gay buddy kept trying to body block his eye contact with my friend's breasts...

There is so much going on with that situation that is not "born that way" that it's hard to know where to begin. That's why I call LGBT cult because it properly is. That boy was not gay. He was made gay as we all watched over the years. He was stalked, chosen, molested and "turned" to be gay by two adult gay men officiating as "committed gay men". If it is of any interest to anyone reading here, the two men are much MUCH older than the boy. They are in their 50s and he is in his very early 20s now. There is at least a 30 year age difference between the "married gay men" and their young "turned" "twink"..

I think any court considering the church of LGBT for marriage ought to take a really good look at the mental health of children of those relationships or adopted into those relationships. Not just a cursory, photo-op look. Not a look sanctioned by the gay-owned APA or its sychophant organizations. This needs to be a special multi-national, multi-paneled group of well-screened objective researchers and specialists from the worlds' most prestigious outfits. Have them study the linguistics of LGBT, the words specifically "to turn" and so on, and then make a determination if this culture of people were born that way or were "turned" that way by some environmental influence after birth.

THEN we can make a determination if they are safe around kids. Otherwise all we have to go on now is:

The Mayo Clinic 2007

One of the most obvious examples of an environmental
factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming
an offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child.
This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”
or “abused-abusers phenomena.”
5,23,24,46...

...
why the “abused abusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor,
in which the abused child is trying to gain a new
identity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexual
arousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuse
leading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...

http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf
Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A Review
James G. Pfaus,1 Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia
University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montre´al, Que´bec, H3G 1M8 Canada

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Didn't bother to read this thread .... but who cares? Two gays who love eatch other so much already think they are married. .. and well the legal thing is just a piece of paper.

A number of state governments clearly care enough to use their considerable resources to deny American citizens their civil liberties.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Do you have proof that the right wouldn't allow Civil Unions to exist or become law in order for the government to abide by such law within many states that would allow civil unions between gays ? I mean civil unions were to allow gays to have the same rights as others when it came to legal matters such as inheritance, benefits and other such matters that involve government or judges in which to reside over such issues. Last I remember the nation was becoming ok with the issue of civil unions, but you say no ?

In the early 2000's many of the states that passed Civil Marriage State Constitutional bans also tied in Civil Union bans:

For example Virginia:

"Section 15-A. Marriage.

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."​

And as another Utah:

Article I, Section 29.
[Marriage.]
(1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
(2) No other domestic union, however denominated, maybe recognized as a
marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.​

Then of course there was the case of Washington State and Referendum 74. The legislature had passed Senate Bill 6239 which granted same-sex couples Civil Unions equal to Civil Marriage in all respects, attempting to make the two different entities equal before the law. Social Conservatives were outraged on such a measure and placed a repeal of the new law on a referendum to repeal it and prevent it's implementation. Why you might ask? The reason was it was to much like marriage. (Disclaimer: The referendum failed to pass but got 46.3% of the vote.


>>>>

 

[JakeStarkey]

beagle9, don't rephrase the question.

The argument is about political philosophy not the actual size of government.

Civil Unions did not work because too many on the far right would not let them be enacted in law.

Your sophistry is both elementary and pathetic.

Ok then you answer Matthew, and I will watch and learn maybe. Do you have proof that the right wouldn't allow Civil Unions to exist or become law in order for the government to abide by such law within many states that would allow civil unions between gays ? I mean civil unions were to allow gays to have the same rights as others when it came to legal matters such as inheritance, benefits and other such matters that involve government or judges in which to reside over such issues. Last I remember the nation was becoming ok with the issue of civil unions, but you say no ?

I am not going to argue with you when the answers are common knowledge. And Sil's filibabble is left unread.

Gays I have known (and this is only anecdotal) said they would have accepted civil unions at one time, but far right intransigence fouled the water.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"They cannot access orphaned kids to adopt."

Silhouette, are you applying your insinuation to the LGBT community on this Board?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So you think that he shouldn't be mentioned if he could be mentioned in the case ? Like Sil says, they have elevated him to icon status, even made a U.S. Stamp for him. Now are they just the same as or just like the Muslims in the case of extremism, where as will they separate themselves from this cat or do they say nothing and become aids or enablers instead of a people whom disagree, whether it be with Muslim extremism on the part of the Muslims to either agree or disagree or with the Gay's on the part of this Harvey Milk worshipping based on the accepting of in which she has pointed out here ?

Harvey Milk is an individual, who in my opinion should have been arrested and charged with sex with a minor. However a politician from four decades ago who liked younger boys has no bearing what-so-ever on whether two consenting adults should be treated equally under the law because there is no valid government interest in promoting invidious and capricious laws which target them for discrimination.

Her "Milk" this and "Milk" that is nothing more than a logical fallacy used to try to poison - what otherwise - can be an open and honest discussion.

It would be like saying the because Jerry Lee Lewis had sex with his 13-year old first cousin that all heterosexual should be banned from married because an older man (he was in his 20's at the time) had sex with a 13 year old girl and because he back an icon of society and even inducted into the R&R Hall of Fame.

Neither makes any sense and has no bearing on a discussion about consenting adults.



>>>>

Either you have a moral standing on these matters, issues or things (or) you do not, I mean it's just as simple as that really. Jerry Lewis is still the talk around town as are many others as well. They are the talk because of how he (in the matter you mentioned) did what he did, and people still don't see it as right and never will, but hollywood and the government over rides the people's thinking and/or views on such matters or things more so than ever now, and they have been doing this in the peoples face for quite sometime now.

It is the government controlled by factions who is now aiding in the lifting up or iconizing bad characters for whom would have never been lifted up in the most of society as was found here in the past.

Welcome to the future of America that is now controlled by hollywood first, and then the strong arm of the government who will back hollywood up next against the good will of the people and their families.

People who do these things and/or uphold deplorable things in this nation, have since become a problem for many in this nation, along with their thinking on such matters, and the only reason they (the supporters of such things) are getting away with it, is because the young folks have been indoctronated so precisely, and by design all due to a bombardment of hollywood influencing along with the government who enforces such things through a blanketing PC enviroment created, that there is not much chance for reversing such things it seems anymore. Does it make things that are empowered right ? Nope, but the people live in fear now, and so onward it all goes. It's just mind numbing anymore really. It all suggest that everyone now allow or tolerate all sorts of weird and bad things, and the bottom line is, (ha) it's all just because they say so where choice is no longer an option in such matters or opinions as is given by the people or for the people anymore.

Many things are forced upon the good citizens as being "right" now, even though they wouldn't have ever been tolerated along the moral lines of thinking that many understood as being "right" in the past.

Good Luck America, because your entering into the twighlight zone of government control and indoctronation by such control.

Nonsense.

The law is predicated on objective facts, evidence, and what can be proven in a court of law.

That you and others fear and hate gay Americans is neither fact nor evidence; that your animus toward gay Americans is motivated solely by subjective moral dogma is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, and appropriately so.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Just so.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Neither the Bible nor Natural Law has anything, beagle9, to do with this case.

I know you wish it did.

You don't know what I wish, but it is my thoughts that you wish you did. I am just giving Sil a listen to, and a fair shake at her findings and linking's upon such things that she has found in her studies. Everyone else ought to be doing the same, but due to their personal biases, associations or actual lifestyles lived in life, they can't see the forest for the tree's anymore. This is based upon anything that is said now or is being based upon facts and statistics, or even upon the majority's view's upon what is being debated and/or conversed about in these forums. People should keep an open mind on the issues coming in from both directions as is being looked at, but you see how that is very hard for some to do in life. Consideration is becoming a far and outdated thing in todays society now, and it is being replaced with pure unadulterated intolerance of any other views instead.

More nonsense.

You’re at liberty to hate gay Americans; no one is being ‘intolerant’ of your hatred, nor is anyone seeking to subject you to some punitive measure as a consequence of your hate.

But you are not at liberty to seek to codify your hate, by denying gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law.

 

[Silhouette]

"They cannot access orphaned kids to adopt."

Silhouette, are you applying your insinuation to the LGBT community on this Board?

Nice try asshole. Stick to the topic. Defend the points put to you and stop trying to badger people into non-existence. Either win your argument on its merits or go home and hang your sorry "lawyer" head in shame. Only speak here as if you would in a court room, understand? Bullying the opposition ain't gonna wash when the chips are down..

I notice you haven't answered my question about the percentage of likelihood that Sotomayor will vote down Utah's rights to determine marriage for itself. Care to reveal that number? Remember, there are conflicting issues with Sotomayor. On the one hand she is presumably catholic and has read the gravity of sin in Jude 1 and Romans 1...and knows her pivotal position in human history to be in paramount defiance of those passages. On the other hand she was doing the can-can at a bacchanal on New Year's Eve at Time's Square, on national TV with Miley Cyrus as her opening act. Do you think she is a "name only christian" or does Utah stand a chance with her?

I personally think her behavior is the most reprehensible form of disrespect for the US Constitution in any public official since the dawn of our nation. But then again, I'm equipped with perspective that few seem to have these days it seems... Sotomayor, IMHO should be impeached for what she did.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If the conservative movement is for smaller government? Why do you want to stop someone from getting married to who they choose?

Does ANYONE getting married to who they choose, now cause smaller government or bigger government to happen as a result of ? Now that is a question to be pondered now isn't it ?

Wonder what happened to Civil Unions, and why wasn't that good enough ? Didn't that give them the very governmental things in which was being held back from them finally, and this as far as them being together in this way legally ?

Those who seek to deny gay Americans their equal protection rights by enacting measures designed to prohibit same-sex couples from accessing marriage law indeed increase the size and authority of government to interfere in our private lives.

As for ‘civil unions,’ they’re a hateful contrivance by those hostile to the civil liberties of same-sex couples, where ‘separate but equal’ is just as offensive to the Constitution concerning gay Americans as any other class of persons likewise discriminated against.

 

[Silhouette]

If the conservative movement is for smaller government? Why do you want to stop someone from getting married to who they choose?

Does ANYONE getting married to who they choose, now cause smaller government or bigger government to happen as a result of ? Now that is a question to be pondered now isn't it ?

Wonder what happened to Civil Unions, and why wasn't that good enough ? Didn't that give them the very governmental things in which was being held back from them finally, and this as far as them being together in this way legally ?

Those who seek to deny gay Americans their equal protection rights by enacting measures designed to prohibit same-sex couples from accessing marriage law indeed increase the size and authority of government to interfere in our private lives.

As for ‘civil unions,’ they’re a hateful contrivance by those hostile to the civil liberties of same-sex couples, where ‘separate but equal’ is just as offensive to the Constitution concerning gay Americans as any other class of persons likewise discriminated against.

Nice rhetoric pal...blah blah blah blah blah "hateful" blah blah blah blah "bigot" blah blah blah blah "homophobe" blah blah blah...

Defend your elevation of Harvey Milk to LGBT icon. That's the type of argument to be had in court. The "poor little old church of LGBT" argument is going to fall flat on its face this time I believe. Explain Harvey Milk. Start doing your homework if you want access to adoptable kids via marriage... Great place to start would be Milk's biography. Or maybe that's a terrible place to start? Gee, I don't envy you..

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

beagle9, don't rephrase the question.

The argument is about political philosophy not the actual size of government.

Civil Unions did not work because too many on the far right would not let them be enacted in law.

Your sophistry is both elementary and pathetic.

Ok then you answer Matthew, and I will watch and learn maybe. Do you have proof that the right wouldn't allow Civil Unions to exist or become law in order for the government to abide by such law within many states that would allow civil unions between gays ? I mean civil unions were to allow gays to have the same rights as others when it came to legal matters such as inheritance, benefits and other such matters that involve government or judges in which to reside over such issues. Last I remember the nation was becoming ok with the issue of civil unions, but you say no ?

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts as the law exists now; to seek to contrive ‘alternative marriage’ in an effort to assuage the fear and hate of those hostile to gay Americans is a clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, where such ‘alternative marriage’ seeks only to make same-sex couples different from everyone else, absent a rational basis or proper legislative end.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"They cannot access orphaned kids to adopt."

Silhouette, are you applying your insinuation to the LGBT community on this Board?

Nice try asshole. Stick to the topic. Defend the points put to you and stop trying to badger people into non-existence. Either win your argument on its merits or go home and hang your sorry "lawyer" head in shame. Only speak here as if you would in a court room, understand? Bullying the opposition ain't gonna wash when the chips are down..

I notice you haven't answered my question about the percentage of likelihood that Sotomayor will vote down Utah's rights to determine marriage for itself. Care to reveal that number? Remember, there are conflicting issues with Sotomayor. On the one hand she is presumably catholic and has read the gravity of sin in Jude 1 and Romans 1...and knows her pivotal position in human history to be in paramount defiance of those passages. On the other hand she was doing the can-can at a bacchanal on New Year's Eve at Time's Square, on national TV with Miley Cyrus as her opening act. Do you think she is a "name only christian" or does Utah stand a chance with her?

I personally think her behavior is the most reprehensible form of disrespect for the US Constitution in any public official since the dawn of our nation. But then again, I'm equipped with perspective that few seem to have these days it seems... Sotomayor, IMHO should be impeached for what she did.

Your casuistry undermines your filibabble.

(1) Your LBGT meme has no merit.

(2) I have answered your question about Sotomayor, so, no, Sil, you don't get "just once more."

(3) The Bible, which gives you no authority, has no standing in front of SCOTUS.

(4) You are entitled to your opinion, which has no standing before SCOTUS.

(5) Only speak here on the terms of the case, understand?

Understand, Sil, your sophistry had better not include any insinuation.

 

[Seawytch]

beagle9, don't rephrase the question.

The argument is about political philosophy not the actual size of government.

Civil Unions did not work because too many on the far right would not let them be enacted in law.

Your sophistry is both elementary and pathetic.

Ok then you answer Matthew, and I will watch and learn maybe. Do you have proof that the right wouldn't allow Civil Unions to exist or become law in order for the government to abide by such law within many states that would allow civil unions between gays ? I mean civil unions were to allow gays to have the same rights as others when it came to legal matters such as inheritance, benefits and other such matters that involve government or judges in which to reside over such issues. Last I remember the nation was becoming ok with the issue of civil unions, but you say no ?

I say no too. Civil unions would be great...if they weren't just for the gays. Now, if anyone who wanted a civil marriage had to get a civil union, that would be just fine but having one thing for straights and one thing for gays...well, that violates the Constitution.

 

[Seawytch]

Here's why civil unions won't do for LGBTs in most states: They cannot access orphaned kids to adopt.

Yes, actually we can. Utah does not allow adoption by singles, only married couples and Mississippi does not allow adoption by gay couples, only gay singles.

In most states, whether gay adoption is legal is made on a case-by-case basis by a judge. However, there are 16 states that definitely allow joint gay adoptions (when a same-sex couple jointly petition for adoption): Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, D.C., Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.

Other states allow second parent adoption by law. Second parent adoption is when one person adopts the child of his partner. These states include: Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, D.C., Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont.

Still, people have successfully done second parent adoptions in the following 16 states as well: Alabama, Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, and Washington.

The most restrictive states are Mississippi and Utah, where same sex couples cannot legally adopt at all. Gay people in Florida used to not be able to adopt, jointly or singly, but a Florida district court ruled.​

LGBT Adoption Statistics

So "the gheys" are adopting the kids the straights threw away in almost all the states already there Sil.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, what does this mean: "They cannot access orphaned kids to adopt."

Do you include heterosexual marriages as well?

 

[Silhouette]

Your casuistry undermines your filibabble.

(1) Your LBGT meme has no merit.

(2) I have answered your question about Sotomayor, so, no, Sil, you don't get "just once more."

(3) The Bible, which gives you no authority, has no standing in front of SCOTUS.

(4) You are entitled to your opinion, which has no standing before SCOTUS.

(5) Only speak here on the terms of the case, understand?

Understand, Sil, your sophistry had better not include any insinuation.

1. It isn't *my* LGBT meme. Are you suggesting I created the term LGBT and sustained it all the decades it's been in popular use by its members? Try not to insult people's intelligence here Jake.

2. I'm sorry, I missed where you gave a percentage of likelihood that Sotomayor would uphold Utah's rights to determine marriage. Could you repost just the percentage number for just her?

3. I'm not sure it's the Bible that would be in question to have standing, but rather the 1st Amendment to adhere to the Bible, which does have constitutional standing at the Supreme Court. The state or the fed cannot require christians to commit mortal sin [Jude 1, Romans 1 for failing to earnestly contend to not enable homosexual cultures] as a matter of law.

4. My opinions may or may not have standing depending on their merit, not that they came from little ole' me... Your ad hominem is noted. The substance of what I say and not that it came from me is at question here.

5. I mentioned that because you are constantly siderailing the topics you engage in with insults at other posters. Which is against the rules.

 

[beagle9]

beagle9, don't rephrase the question.

The argument is about political philosophy not the actual size of government.

Civil Unions did not work because too many on the far right would not let them be enacted in law.

Your sophistry is both elementary and pathetic.

Ok then you answer Matthew, and I will watch and learn maybe. Do you have proof that the right wouldn't allow Civil Unions to exist or become law in order for the government to abide by such law within many states that would allow civil unions between gays ? I mean civil unions were to allow gays to have the same rights as others when it came to legal matters such as inheritance, benefits and other such matters that involve government or judges in which to reside over such issues. Last I remember the nation was becoming ok with the issue of civil unions, but you say no ?

I say no too. Civil unions would be great...if they weren't just for the gays. Now, if anyone who wanted a civil marriage had to get a civil union, that would be just fine but having one thing for straights and one thing for gays...well, that violates the Constitution.

Says you in your interpretation of, but is that the consensus interpretation among the people, and as well the government looking back over time, or is it just something that is new and thought of now, wherefore if it is said enough, then maybe it will stick, and that is the hopes of those who are engaged in such re-intrepting of the constitution in order to fit their needs and wants these days.